DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2006.01953V1 [Math.GT] 2 Jun 2020 Generally of Group Actions and Play an Important Role in the Understanding the Dynamics of That Actions, E.G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2006.01953V1 [Math.GT] 2 Jun 2020 Generally of Group Actions and Play an Important Role in the Understanding the Dynamics of That Actions, E.G ACTIONS OF GROUPS OF FOLIATED HOMEOMORPHISMS ON SPACES OF LEAVES SERGIY MAKSYMENKO AND EUGENE POLULYAKH Abstract. Let ∆ be a foliation on a topological manifold X, Y be the space of leaves, and p : X ! Y be the natural projection. Endow Y with the factor topology with respect to p. Then the group H(X; ∆) of foliated (i.e. mapping leaves onto leaves) homeomorphisms of X naturally acts on the space of leaves Y , which gives a homomorphism : H(X; ∆) !H(Y ). We present sufficient conditions when is continuous with respect to the corresponding compact open topologies. In fact similar results hold not only for foliations but for a more general class of partitions ∆ of locally compact Hausdorff spaces X. 1. Introduction Let X be an m-dimensional topological manifold and ∆ be a foliation on X. Denote by Y the space of leaves of ∆ and let p : X ! Y be the natural projection associating to each x 2 X the leaf containing x. Endow Y with the factor topology with respect to p, so a subset A ⊂ Y is open if and only if p−1(A) is open in X. A homeomorphism h : X ! X will be called • foliated if for each leaf y of ∆ its image h(y) is also a leaf of ∆; • leaf-preserving if h(y) = y for each leaf y of ∆. Obviously, each leaf-preserving homeomorphism is foliated. Denote by H(X; ∆) the group of all foliated homeomorphisms of X and by H(Y ) the group of all homeomorphisms of Y . Endow these groups with the compact open topologies. Notice that in general the multiplication and inversion are not continuous operations in H(X; ∆) and H(Y ) with respect to compact open topologies. The spaces of leaves Y of foliations often appear as spaces of orbits of flows and more arXiv:2006.01953v1 [math.GT] 2 Jun 2020 generally of group actions and play an important role in the understanding the dynamics of that actions, e.g. [5, 15,4,7, 10,2,3] and others. The usual difficulty arising at once when we pass from the manifold X to the space of leaves Y is that Y is usually non-Hausdorff. Moreover, if some leaves of ∆ are non-closed as subsets of X, (e.g. dense in some open subset), then Y is not T1 as well. Let us also mention that in [11] it was given a characterization of a manifold Y to be metrizable in terms of H(Y ) endowed with compact open topology. Homotopy properties of groups H(X; ∆) were studied e.g. in [28, 30, 29, 31, 32, 14,1, 19, 21] and references therein. Most of them extend the results by M. Herman [16], W. Thurston [33], J. Mather [26, 27] and D. B. A. Epstein [8] about perfectness of such groups (i.e. triviality homologies of their classifying spaces). The aim of the present paper is to propose a certain approach for relating the homotopy types of the groups H(X; ∆) and H(Y ). Notice that each h 2 H(X; ∆) yields a permutation 1 2 SERGIY MAKSYMENKO AND EUGENE POLULYAKH (h): Y ! Y of the leaves of ∆ such that the following diagram is commutative: X −−−!h X ? ? p? ?p (1.1) y y (h) Y −−−! Y One can easily check that (h) is in fact a homeomorphism of Y , see e.g. Lemma 3.1 below, while the correspondence h ! (h) is a well-defined homomorphism : H(X; ∆) !H(Y ). Evidently, its kernel ker( ) consists of leaf-preserving homeomorphisms. We will study the question whether the following natural property holds: (C) The homomorphism : H(X; ∆) !H(Y ) is continuous with respect to the corre- sponding compact open topologies of those groups. It is satisfied in many special cases, however the authors were not able to find its general investigations in the available literature. One of the reasons is that the space of leaves is usually non-Hausdorff, while compact open topologies are well-studied for locally compact Hausdorff spaces, e.g. [9]. Under essentially more general settings than foliations we will show, see Lemma 3.3, that property (C) is a consequence of the following condition: (K) For every compact L ⊂ Y there exists a compact K ⊂ X such that p(K) = L. Further we will describe several particular situations when (K) and therefore (C) hold, see Corollary 3.4. On the other hand, we will also present examples when (C) holds, while (K) fails, see examples in Seciton6. They are well-known partition of torus by orbits of irrational flow and partition into orbits of Denjoy homeomorphism of the circle. The following Theorem 1.1 is one of the principal results of the paper. Say that a subset A ⊂ Y is locally finite, if every y 2 Y has a neighborhood U such that U \ A is a finite set. We also say that points y; z 2 Y are T2-disjoint, if they have disjoint neighborhoods. If a point y 2 Y is not T2-disjoint from some other point z 2 Y , then y will be called a branch point of Y , see Section4 for details. Theorem 1.1. Let ∆ be a foliation on a Hausdorff topological manifold X. Suppose that a) the space of leaves Y of ∆ is a T1-space, i.e. each leaf ! of ∆ is a closed subset of X; b) the set of branch points of Y is locally finite. Then the map (3.3) : H(X; ∆) !H(Y ) is continuous with respect to compact open topolo- gies. This theorem is a special case of Theorem 5.2 and will be proved in subsection 5.3. Evaluation maps. Property (C) has also several consequences which relate the homotopy groups of H(X; ∆) and H(Y ). Let x 2 X, y = p(x) 2 Y be the leaf containing x and evx : H(X; ∆) ! X; evy : H(Y ) ! Y; evx(h) = h(x); evy(g) = g(y); be the evaluation maps at x and y respectively. It is well known and is easy to show that evx and evy are continuous, see Lemma 2.5. ACTIONS OF FOLIATED HOMEOMORPHISMS ON SPACES OF LEAVES 3 Then commutativity of the diagram (1.1) implies another commutative diagram: H(X; ∆) −−−! H(Y ) ? ? evx? ?evy (1.2) y y p X −−−! Y Indeed, p ◦ evx(h) = p h(x) = (h) p(x) = (h)(y) = evy ◦ (h): Till the end of this section assume that property (C) holds, that is is continuous, and so (1.2) consists of continuous maps. Then the following statements hold. 1) For each n ≥ 0 diagram (1.2) induces a diagram consisting of the corresponding k-th homotopy groups and induced homomorphisms: k πk H(X; ∆); idX −−−! πk H(Y ); idY ? ? (ev ) ? ?(ev ) (1.3) x ky y y k pk πk(X; x) −−−! πk(Y; y) Let us mention that for k = 0 the sets π0 H(X; ∆); idX and π0 H(Y ); idY are in fact groups, and the induced map 0 : π0 H(X; ∆); idX ! π0 H(Y ); idY of those groups is a homomorphism as well, see Lemma 2.1. 2) There is a similar diagram for any subgroup G of H(X; ∆): G −−−! H(Y ) ? ? evx? ?evy (1.4) y y p X −−−! Y 3) Finally, let us consider a very important case when X is a smooth manifold, ∆ is a smooth foliation, and G is the group of foliated diffeomorphisms of X. Then G is usually endowed with a strong or weak Cr topology for some r ≥ 0. Since the compact open topology is the same as weak C0 and is the weakest among all the above topologies, we see that the homomorphism : G!H(Y ) is still continuous into compact open topology of H(Y ), and we still get the commutative diagram: πk G; idX −−−! πk H(Y ); idY ? ? evx? ?evy (1.5) y y p πk(X; x) −−−! πk(Y; y) Structure of the paper. In the preliminary section2 we discuss topological monoids and non-Hausdorff locally compact spaces. It is shown that many properties of compact open topologies on the spaces of continuous maps between locally compact Hausdorff topological spaces are preserved if we omit Hausdorff property. In fact, the presented results are known and in some cases are rather simple, but we give their proofs just to assure that we do not assume Hausdorff property. 4 SERGIY MAKSYMENKO AND EUGENE POLULYAKH In Section3 we also consider arbitrary partitions not only foliations, and prove in Lemma 3.3 that condition (K) implies (C). Section4 is devoted to the study of so called branch points at which the space of leaves looses Hausdorff property. Finally in section5 we prove Theorem 5.2 and its particular case Theorem 1.1. 2. Preliminaries Topological monoids. Recall that a monoid structure on a set G is a map µ : G × G ! G being associative and having a unit element e 2 G, that is µ(a; µ(b; c)) = µ(µ(a; b); c) and µ(a; e) = µ(e; a) = a for all a; b; c 2 G. We will usually denote µ(a; b) simply by ab. Notice that the unit element in a monoid is unique. Indeed, if e0 is another unit, then e0 = ee0 = e. A homomorphism of monoids q : G ! H with units eG and eH respectively is a map such that q(eG) = eH and q(ab) = q(a)q(b) for all a; b 2 G. If a monoid G is endowed with a topology in which µ is continuous, then it is called a topological monoid.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topology and Descriptive Set Theory
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 58 (1994) 195-222 Topology and descriptive set theory Alexander S. Kechris ’ Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Received 28 March 1994 Abstract This paper consists essentially of the text of a series of four lectures given by the author in the Summer Conference on General Topology and Applications, Amsterdam, August 1994. Instead of attempting to give a general survey of the interrelationships between the two subjects mentioned in the title, which would be an enormous and hopeless task, we chose to illustrate them in a specific context, that of the study of Bore1 actions of Polish groups and Bore1 equivalence relations. This is a rapidly growing area of research of much current interest, which has interesting connections not only with topology and set theory (which are emphasized here), but also to ergodic theory, group representations, operator algebras and logic (particularly model theory and recursion theory). There are four parts, corresponding roughly to each one of the lectures. The first contains a brief review of some fundamental facts from descriptive set theory. In the second we discuss Polish groups, and in the third the basic theory of their Bore1 actions. The last part concentrates on Bore1 equivalence relations. The exposition is essentially self-contained, but proofs, when included at all, are often given in the barest outline. Keywords: Polish spaces; Bore1 sets; Analytic sets; Polish groups; Bore1 actions; Bore1 equivalence relations 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birman-Hilden Theory
    THE BIRMAN{HILDEN THEORY DAN MARGALIT AND REBECCA R. WINARSKI Abstract. In the 1970s Joan Birman and Hugh Hilden wrote several papers on the problem of relating the mapping class group of a surface to that of a cover. We survey their work, give an overview of the subsequent developments, and discuss open questions and new directions. 1. Introduction In the early 1970s Joan Birman and Hugh Hilden wrote a series of now- classic papers on the interplay between mapping class groups and covering spaces. The initial goal was to determine a presentation for the mapping class group of S2, the closed surface of genus two (it was not until the late 1970s that Hatcher and Thurston [33] developed an approach for finding explicit presentations for mapping class groups). The key innovation by Birman and Hilden is to relate the mapping class group Mod(S2) to the mapping class group of S0;6, a sphere with six marked points. Presentations for Mod(S0;6) were already known since that group is closely related to a braid group. The two surfaces S2 and S0;6 are related by a two-fold branched covering map S2 ! S0;6: arXiv:1703.03448v1 [math.GT] 9 Mar 2017 The six marked points in the base are branch points. The deck transforma- tion is called the hyperelliptic involution of S2, and we denote it by ι. Every element of Mod(S2) has a representative that commutes with ι, and so it follows that there is a map Θ : Mod(S2) ! Mod(S0;6): The kernel of Θ is the cyclic group of order two generated by (the homotopy class of) the involution ι.
    [Show full text]
  • Polish Spaces and Baire Spaces
    Polish spaces and Baire spaces Jordan Bell [email protected] Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto June 27, 2014 1 Introduction These notes consist of me working through those parts of the first chapter of Alexander S. Kechris, Classical Descriptive Set Theory, that I think are impor- tant in analysis. Denote by N the set of positive integers. I do not talk about universal spaces like the Cantor space 2N, the Baire space NN, and the Hilbert cube [0; 1]N, or \localization", or about Polish groups. If (X; τ) is a topological space, the Borel σ-algebra of X, denoted by BX , is the smallest σ-algebra of subsets of X that contains τ. BX contains τ, and is closed under complements and countable unions, and rather than talking merely about Borel sets (elements of the Borel σ-algebra), we can be more specific by talking about open sets, closed sets, and sets that are obtained by taking countable unions and complements. Definition 1. An Fσ set is a countable union of closed sets. A Gδ set is a complement of an Fσ set. Equivalently, it is a countable intersection of open sets. If (X; d) is a metric space, the topology induced by the metric d is the topology generated by the collection of open balls. If (X; τ) is a topological space, a metric d on the set X is said to be compatible with τ if τ is the topology induced by d.A metrizable space is a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric, and a completely metrizable space is a topological space whose topology is induced by some complete metric.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-Manifold Groups
    3-Manifold Groups Matthias Aschenbrenner Stefan Friedl Henry Wilton University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA E-mail address: [email protected] Fakultat¨ fur¨ Mathematik, Universitat¨ Regensburg, Germany E-mail address: [email protected] Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Cam- bridge University, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] Abstract. We summarize properties of 3-manifold groups, with a particular focus on the consequences of the recent results of Ian Agol, Jeremy Kahn, Vladimir Markovic and Dani Wise. Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Decomposition Theorems 7 1.1. Topological and smooth 3-manifolds 7 1.2. The Prime Decomposition Theorem 8 1.3. The Loop Theorem and the Sphere Theorem 9 1.4. Preliminary observations about 3-manifold groups 10 1.5. Seifert fibered manifolds 11 1.6. The JSJ-Decomposition Theorem 14 1.7. The Geometrization Theorem 16 1.8. Geometric 3-manifolds 20 1.9. The Geometric Decomposition Theorem 21 1.10. The Geometrization Theorem for fibered 3-manifolds 24 1.11. 3-manifolds with (virtually) solvable fundamental group 26 Chapter 2. The Classification of 3-Manifolds by their Fundamental Groups 29 2.1. Closed 3-manifolds and fundamental groups 29 2.2. Peripheral structures and 3-manifolds with boundary 31 2.3. Submanifolds and subgroups 32 2.4. Properties of 3-manifolds and their fundamental groups 32 2.5. Centralizers 35 Chapter 3. 3-manifold groups after Geometrization 41 3.1. Definitions and conventions 42 3.2. Justifications 45 3.3. Additional results and implications 59 Chapter 4. The Work of Agol, Kahn{Markovic, and Wise 63 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Characterizations of Linear Baire Spaces 205
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 45, Number 2, August 1974 TWOCHARACTERIZATIONS OF LINEAR BAIRE SPACES STEPHEN A. SAXON1 ABSTRACT. The Wilansky-Klee conjecture is equivalent to the (un- proved) conjecture that every dense, 1-codimensional subspace of an arbitrary Banach space is a Baire space (second category in itself). The following two characterizations may be useful in dealing with this conjecture: (i) A topological vector space is a Baire space if and on- ly if every absorbing, balanced, closed set is a neighborhood of some point, (ii) A topological vector space is a Baire space if and only if it cannot be covered by countably many nowhere dense sets, each of which is a union of lines (1-dimensional subspaces). Characterization (i) has a more succinct form, using the definition of Wilansky's text [8, p. 224]: a topological vector space is a Baire space if and only if it has the t property. Introduction. The Wilansky-Klee conjecture (see [3], [7]) is equivalent to the conjecture that every dense, 1-codimensional subspace of a Banach space is a Baire space. In [4], [5], [6], [7] it is shown that every counta- ble-codimensional subspace of a locally convex space which is "nearly" a Baire space is, itself, "nearly" a Baire space. (Theorem 1 of this paper indicates how "nearly Baire" a barrelled space is: Wilansky's class of W'barrelled spaces [9,p. 44] is precisely the class of linear Baire spaces.) The theorem [7] that every countable-codimensional subspace of an unor- dered Baire-like space is unordered Baire-like is the closest to an affirmation of the conjecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeotopy Groups by G
    HOMEOTOPY GROUPS BY G. s. Mccarty, jr. o Introduction. A principal goal in algebraic topology has been to classify and characterize spaces by means of topological invariants. One such is certainly the group G(X) of homeomorphisms of a space X. And, for a large class of spaces X (including manifolds), the compact-open topology is a natural choice for GiX), making it a topological transformation group on X. GiX) is too large and complex for much direct study; however, homotopy invariants of GiX) are not homotopy invariants of X. Thus, the homeotopy groups of X are defined to be the homotopy groups of GiX). The Jf kiX) = 7tt[G(Z)] are topological in- variants of X which are shown (§2) not to be invariant even under isotopy, yet the powerful machinery of homotopy theory is available for their study. In (2) some of the few published results concerning the component group Ji?0iX) = jr0[G(X)] are recounted. This group is then shown to distinguish members of some pairs of homotopic spaces. In (3) the topological group G(X) is given the structure of a fiber bundle over X, with the isotropy group xGiX) at x e X as fiber, for a class of homogeneous spaces X. This structure defines a topologically invariant, exact sequence, Jf^iX). In (4), ¿FJJi) is shown to be defined for manifolds, and this definition is ex- tended to manifolds with boundary. Relations are then derived among the homeo- topy groups of the set of manifolds got by deletion of finite point sets from a compact manifold.
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGY PRELIM REVIEW 2021: LIST THREE Topic 1: Baire Property and Gδ Sets. Definition. X Is a Baire Space If a Countable Inte
    TOPOLOGY PRELIM REVIEW 2021: LIST THREE Topic 1: Baire property and Gδ sets. Definition. X is a Baire space if a countable intersection of open, dense subsets of X is dense in X. Complete metric spaces and locally compact spaces are Baire spaces. Def. X is locally compact if for all x 2 X, and all open Ux, there exists Vx with compact closure V x ⊂ Ux. 1. X is locally compact , for all C ⊂ X compact, and all open U ⊃ C, there exists V open with compact closure, so that: C ⊂ V ⊂ V ⊂ U. 2. Def: A set E ⊂ X is nowhere dense in X if its closure E has empty interior. Show: X is a Baire space , any countable union of nowhere dense sets has empty interior. 3. A complete metric space without isolated points is uncountable. (Hint: Baire property, complements of one-point sets.) 4. Uniform boundedness principle. X complete metric, F ⊂ C(X) a family of continuous functions, bounded at each point: (8a 2 X)(9M(a) > 0)(8f 2 F)jf(a)j ≤ M(a): Then there exists a nonempty open set U ⊂ X so that F is eq¨uibounded over U{there exists a constant C > 0 so that: (8f 2 F)(8x 2 U)jf(x)j ≤ C: Hint: For n ≥ 1, consider An = fx 2 X; jf(x)j ≤ n; 8f 2 Fg. Use Baire's property. An important application of 4. is the uniform boundedness principle for families of bounded linear operators F ⊂ L(E; F ), where E; F are Banach spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Is Not Isotopy for Homeomorphisms of 3-Manifolds
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector KMC-9383,86 13.00+ .CO C 1986 Rrgamon Res Ltd. HOMOTOPY IS NOT ISOTOPY FOR HOMEOMORPHISMS OF 3-MANIFOLDS JOHN L. FRIEDMAN? and DONALD M. WIT-I (Received in reuised form 7 May 1985) IXl-RODUCTION THE existence of a homeomorphism that is homotopic but not isotopic to the identity has remained an open question for closed 3-manifolds [I, 23. We consider here homeotopy groups:: of spherical spaces, finding as a by-product of our work an example of such a homeomorphism for a closed 3-manifold whose prime factors include certain spherical spaces. The homeotopy groups of a composite 3-manifold have as subgroups the disk-fixing or point-fixing homeotopy groups of each prime factor [3,4]. In the work reported here our primary aim has been to calculate, for spherical spaces the corresponding 0th homeotopy groups, the groups of path connected components of the spaces of disk-fixing and point- fixing homeomorphisms. Homeomorphism groups of spherical spaces have been considered recently by Rubinstein et al. [S-7]. Asano [8], Bonahon [9] and Ivanov [lo]. Their results are consistent with Hatcher’s conjecture [ 1 l] that for each spherical space the group of homeomorphisms has the same homotopy type as the group of isometries. Homotopy classes of the groups HO and XX of homeomorphisms that fix respectively a disk and a point do not generally have this character (for spherical spaces): in particular, nonzero elements of ~,,(&‘a) and rr,, (XX) are commonly not represented by isometries.
    [Show full text]
  • [Math.GN] 4 Sep 2006 Aiod,Toewihaehudr.W Hwta Hsi O H Ca the Not the Is Called This That first, Show We the Hausdorff
    MANIFOLDS: HAUSDORFFNESS VERSUS HOMOGENEITY MATHIEU BAILLIF AND ALEXANDRE GABARD Abstract. We analyze the relationship between Hausdorffness and homogeneity in the frame of manifolds, not confined to be Hausdorff. We exhibit examples of homo- geneous non-Hausdorff manifolds and prove that a Lindel¨of homogeneous manifold is Hausdorff. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 57N99, 54D10, 54E52. Key words and phrases. Manifolds, Non-Hausdorff manifolds, homogeneity. 1 Introduction Our purpose here is to analyze the relationship between Hausdorffness and homogeneity in the frame of manifolds. We give the word manifold its broadest sense, that is, a topological space locally homeomorphic to the Euclidean space Rn of a fixed dimension (without assuming the Hausdorff separation axiom). Recall that a connected Hausdorff manifold M is homogeneous, i.e. for each x, y ∈ M, there is a homeomorphism h : M → M taking x to y (see [8] or [9], p. 150). This property is true only under the Hausdorff assumption. Without it, one may well have an non homogeneous manifold, for example the well known line with two origins: take two copies of the real line R and identify all corresponding points of the copies but the origin (Figure 1). This yields a one-dimensional manifold in which the two origins cannot be separated1. Notice though that a point different from the origins can be separated from any other point, so the manifold is not homogeneous. Another well known example of non-Hausdorff manifold is the branching line obtained by identifying the points < 0 in the two copies of R (Figure 1). no identifications ... ... ... ... no identifications ..
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2105.06358V1 [Math.FA] 13 May 2021 Xml,I 2 H.3,P 31.I 7,Qudfie H Ocp Fa of Concept the [7]) Defined in Qiu Complete [7], Quasi-Fast for in As See (Denoted 1371]
    INDUCTIVE LIMITS OF QUASI LOCALLY BAIRE SPACES THOMAS E. GILSDORF Department of Mathematics Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 USA [email protected] May 14, 2021 Abstract. Quasi-locally complete locally convex spaces are general- ized to quasi-locally Baire locally convex spaces. It is shown that an inductive limit of strictly webbed spaces is regular if it is quasi-locally Baire. This extends Qiu’s theorem on regularity. Additionally, if each step is strictly webbed and quasi- locally Baire, then the inductive limit is quasi-locally Baire if it is regular. Distinguishing examples are pro- vided. 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 46A13; Sec- ondary 46A30, 46A03. Keywords: Quasi locally complete, quasi-locally Baire, inductive limit. arXiv:2105.06358v1 [math.FA] 13 May 2021 1. Introduction and notation. Inductive limits of locally convex spaces have been studied in detail over many years. Such study includes properties that would imply reg- ularity, that is, when every bounded subset in the in the inductive limit is contained in and bounded in one of the steps. An excellent introduc- tion to the theory of locally convex inductive limits, including regularity properties, can be found in [1]. Nevertheless, determining whether or not an inductive limit is regular remains important, as one can see for example, in [2, Thm. 34, p. 1371]. In [7], Qiu defined the concept of a quasi-locally complete space (denoted as quasi-fast complete in [7]), in 1 2 THOMASE.GILSDORF which each bounded set is contained in abounded set that is a Banach disk in a coarser locally convex topology, and proves that if an induc- tive limit of strictly webbed spaces is quasi-locally complete, then it is regular.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Complexity on Non-Polish Spaces II Mathieu Hoyrup Université De Lorraine, CNRS, Inria, LORIA, Nancy, France [email protected]
    Descriptive Complexity on Non-Polish Spaces II Mathieu Hoyrup Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Inria, LORIA, Nancy, France [email protected] Abstract This article is a study of descriptive complexity of subsets of represented spaces. Two competing measures of descriptive complexity are available. The first one is topological and measures how complex it is to obtain a set from open sets using boolean operations. The second one measures how complex it is to test membership in the set, and we call it symbolic complexity because it measures the complexity of the symbolic representation of the set. While topological and symbolic complexity are equivalent on countably-based spaces, they differ on more general spaces. Our investigation is aimed at explaining this difference and highly suggests that it is related to the well-known mismatch between topological and sequential aspects of topological spaces. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Turing machines; Mathematics of computing → Point-set topology Keywords and phrases Represented space, Computable analysis, Descriptive set theory, Scott topology Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2020.132 Category Track B: Automata, Logic, Semantics, and Theory of Programming Related Version A full version of the paper is available at https://hal.inria.fr/hal-02483114. Acknowledgements I want to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, and for suggesting the generalization of Corollary 2.4 to quasi-zero-dimensional spaces. 1 Introduction This article fits in the line of research extending descriptive set theory, mainly developed on Polish spaces, to other classes of topological spaces relevant to theoretical computer science, such as domains [21], quasi-Polish spaces [2], and represented spaces [13, 4, 1].
    [Show full text]
  • A Note on Baire Spaces and Continuous Lattices
    BULL. AUSTRAL. MATH. SOC. 06A20, 46L05, 54DI0, 54D99 VOL. 21 (1980), 265-279. A NOTE ON BAIRE SPACES AND CONTINUOUS LATTICES KARL H. HOFMANN We prove a Baire category theorem for continuous lattices and derive category theorems for non-Hausdorff spaces which imply a category theorem of Isbel I 's and have applications to the spectral theory of C*-algebras. The same lattice theoretical methods yield a proof of de Groot's category theorem for regular subc ompac t spac e s. 1. Background and main results A topological space is a Baire space if any countable intersection of dense open sets is dense. The classical result on such spaces is the category theorem of Baire. THEOREM A (Baire). A space is a Baire space if it is locally compact Hausdorff or completely metrizable. This theorem is eminently useful in analysis and topological algebra; one need only recall the open mapping theorems for topological groups and topological vector spaces (see, for example, [7], p. 120) or of theorems in which joint continuity of a two variable function is deduced from separate continuity (see, for example, [7], p. 121, [73], [74], [75]). Basic properties of Baire spaces and their applications are developed in standard texts such as Bourbaki's [7]. The Baire category theorem is in reality two theorems in one; it was de Groot who succeeded in finding a common generalisation of the two. He formulated the following condition [7]. Received 25 October 1979- 265 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.76, on 28 Sep 2021 at 10:53:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
    [Show full text]